A case lately came on for trial in
Paris relating to a quarrel that arose a long time ago. Incidentally, it may be
observed that “the law’s delay” is even greater in France than over here, where,
indeed, until the most august regions of the courts are reached procedure is
comparatively rapid, and on the Chancery side cases are tried as hats are
ironed, “while you wait.” The question in Paris raises one of importance, but in
itself is mere matter for merriment.

Mademoiselle Sarcy sued her manager because he tried to make her depart from
traditions; and, although she is a prima ballerina, required her to wear flowing
petticoats in the ballet of Hйrodiade. The matter stirred Paris
prodigiously.

With us, of course, the ballet has cea sed to be of importance . In
Mademoiselle Genйe we had a dancer as well entitled to immortality as those
about whom our fathers raved, and Russian dancers of brilliance have appeared,
but opera and the legitimate theatre pay no attention to ballet except at
pantomime season; and whilst probably the average keen playgoer of Paris is
acquainted with the names of the orthodox steps, and is aware that in the ballet
one begins as petit rat, then becomes a quadrille ballerina, develops into a
coryphйe, blossoms into a minor subject, grows into a subject, and eventually
emerges and reaches the stars as a prima ballerina, few of us know anything
about the subject.

The whole fight in Paris raged round the question whether, regardless of
period or nation or style of music, the prima ballerina is entitled to wear the
scanty parasol skirt and petticoats in which she delights. The ladies of the
ballet, with modern tradition on their side, resent any alteration in costume.
The matter is not one of propriety in the ordinary sense of the word; the
propriety of ballet costumes is out of the range of rational discussion. No one
can doubt that if we had never seen anything but ordinary society drama and a
ballet were launched at us in customary costume the police courts would take up
the matter.

It is even known that there was a time (not Sir Henry’s) when the Lord
Chamberlain interfered at the Lyceum and was defeated by ridicule. Custom has
settled the question of propriety, and it may be confidently asserted that it
never occurs to the mind of the prima ballerina that any human being could
regard her costume as indelicate. The trouble in Paris was that, despite the
wish of the other persons concerned in the ballet, the star insisted upon
proving lavishly to the public that she did not resemble the traditional Queen
of Spain. She went further: she demanded her pound of flesh-or padding-she
wished to exhibit what in technical slang is called le tutu, a term descriptive
of the abbreviated costume and possessed also of a secondary meaning, which may
be imagined by taking the ordinary tourist’s pronunciation of the words and
translating it. Trilby’s “the altogether” in connexion with tights
explains the matter.

The question is one of art, and here lies its humour. It is not physical
vanity on the part of the ladies, for they know that sculptors would hardly
choose as subjects the lower portion of women whose legs have been
over-developed by a training so arduous that it is found almost impossible to
get English girls to go through with it. But-and here’s the rub-the dancer has a
respect for her craft, which, like the actor’s devotion to his art, tends to
produce erroneous ideas, and this is why the fight has taken place.

At the bottom, it becomes a question of virtuosity. Art has suffered
appallingly in every branch from the mania for cultivation of dexterity in
accomplishment. To the prima ballerina the dancing is more important than the
dance, to the actors the playing than the play, to many painters the facture
than the picture, and so on. Music has been the main sufferer, particularly on
the vocal side, and certain kinds of opera have been buried under the vocal
acrobatics of the singers. One sees occasionally in shop windows, and, it may
be, in human habitations, a species of abominable clock that has no kind of
casing to conceal the works; it suggests the image of a prima ballerina. With
the perfectly modest immodesty of the little boy cited in discussion by Laurence
Sterne, she delights in exhibiting the works; more truthfully than a once famous
conjuror, she insists upon showing us “how it is done”; and that really is quite
the last thing a person of any taste wishes to know, or, rather, desires to have
forced upon him.

Obviously, it is the duty of everyone who pretends to be educated to have
some acquaintance with the mechanics of the different branches of art, but he
does not want to be taught in public. Unfortunately the performer displays
a natural desire to show his own cleverness rather than that of the dramatist.
He treats himself as the cart when he is only the-horse.

Drama has suffered severely from this; indeed, in our theatres we have
reached the topsy-turvydom of having the dramatist write for the players instead
of having the players act for the dramatist. Sterile art is the general outcome.
A great form of architecture perished with the architect who, forgetful of noble
design, indulged in desperate tours de force and offered to the stonemason
the opportunity of executing miracles in stone lacework. Dancing has
stood still since the dancers have gyrated frantically in order to prove their
mechanical dexterity, and drama is in the doldrums because the players, with the
assistance of the press, have induced the public to regard their performance as
more important than the work which it is their duty to represent. The last
statement is becoming inaccurate. It is hardly extravagant to say that when a
play is written at the dictation of an actor the acting will be more important
than the piece, for but little good work comes out of drama concocted under such
circumstances.

The dancers are really dancing on the ruins of their art. They have lessened
their skirts and their popularity at the same time. Old pictures show (and I
believe that old measurements are preserved to indicate the fact) that in the
days of the famous pas de quatre-not, of course, the one at the Gaiety-skirts
were worn far longer than the modern tutu.

The costume of the prima ballerina assoluta in our grandfather’s days was
something like an umbrella and a pair of braces: the umbrella shrank to the
en-tout-cas, and the en-tout-cas to the open parasol; unless the movement is
arrested, in the course of time a lampshade will be reached, and ultimately,
say, fifty years hence, the Genйe of the period will have nothing more of skirt
and petticoat than some kind off ringe round the waist,
indicating, like our coccygeal vertebrae, or the rudimentary limbs of the whale,
a mere useless atrophied apparatus.

It was once possible for the poses and movements of the dancer to be
graceful-the phrase “the poetry of motion” had a meaning. With the stiff tutu
sticking out almost at right angles, elegance is quite impossible. The present
“star” resembles in outline one of the grotesques used by Hogarth to illustrate
his theories in his “Analysis of Beauty,” and one is inclined to laugh at her
awkwardness when she walks; nor is it easy to admire when she whirls round like
a dancing dervish, the tutu mounting higher and becoming more and more
rectangular the faster she goes.

Mlle. Genйe, delicious and graceful, in some flowing character-costume, and
then ridiculous in the tutu that she adores, proved this more than any amount of
written explanation. She was such a great performer, so perfect in mechanism, so
harmonious from little foot to dainty head, so brilliant in her miming, that one
was forced to say sorrowfully “Et tu-tu, Genйe.” Unfortunately the virtuoso
mania is irresistible, and, so far as graceful dancing is concerned, there is no
hope that we may see such a pas de quatre as won fame in the palmy days of the
ballet; we have reached the reign of the pas du tutu, and, almost wish we had
arrived at the pas du tout. During the last few years there has been a
great stir in the dancing world. Some time ago Isadora Duncan gave a private
exhibition at the New Gallery of certain dances in a style intended to be a
revival of old Greek dancing. A little later Miss Ruth St Denis
presented in public some strange, quite beautiful, performances consisting of
dancing, miming and posturing supposed to suggest ideas of Indian life, and her
finely restrained, truly artistic work deeply impressed both the critics and
audiences.

Afterwards came Miss Maud Allan, alleged-no matter with
what degree of truth-to be an imitator of Isadora Duncan, and she made a great
“hit,” her most popular performance being a “Salome” dance, which was considered
by some people to be indecent. Certainly of her costume the French phrase “qui
commence trop tard et finit trop tфt” might justly be used, for she carried
nudity on the stage to a startling degree. In a good many other dances her work
was rather pretty and quite unobjectionable, but vastly inferior to the art of
Isadora Duncan or Ruth St Denis.

Isadora Duncan

The theatrical season of 1908 ended in a blaze of-dancing. At what is
generally deemed about the dullest moment in the year Isadora Duncan appeared at
the Duke of York’s Theatre, and kept it open and well attended for almost a
month. The affair is unique in the history of our theatre. One can imagine a
playhouse running on the basis of a big ballet, with a story, popular music,
magnificent scenery, gorgeous costumes, huge corps de ballet, half-a-dozen
principals and immense advertisement. In this case we have had more or less
isolated dances to music generally severe; for scenery only a background of
subtle yellow, taking strange tones under the influence of different lights; for
costumes only some beautiful, tranquil, simple Greek drapery; for corps de
ballet a few children; for principals one woman, with an intelligent face, but
certainly no great beauty; and in the way of advertisement very little, except
some honestly enthusiastic press notices, and fortunately nothing in the form of
photographs of nudities or half-nudities.

There has been a triumph of pure art under austere conditions, such as can
hardly be recollected on our stage, unless in the case of Everyman-pure art akin
to the theatrical, indeed parent of the drama. The word histrionic is derived
through the Latin from an Etruscan word which means “to leap” and was originally
applied to dancers. Historically, the matter is interesting. Drama
began in dance and developed from it, dance and drama going hand-in-hand for a
long while; then a separation came, and dance has tended more and more to become
meaningless and conventional, and, in the chief school of dancing, purely
technical. The Spanish school is still alive, reinforced by the North African,
and in the main showing some tendency, often perfectly restrained, towards the
indecent. Our own step-dancing remains popular, and for a while the hybrid
skirt-dancing triumphed, chiefly because of the genius of Kate Vaughan and
talent of her successors, one of whom, Katie Seymour, worked out a clever
individual compound of styles.

The “Classic” school, classic in quite a secondary sense, which has been
represented by what one can conveniently call the ballet, year after year has
worked towards its extinction by the over-cultivation of mere technique, of
execution rather than imagination.

The greatest artist of this school in our times is Genйe; natural grace, a
piquant individuality, and a fine power of miming, have lent charm to work the
foundation of which is really acrobatic, and consists of remarkable feats made
too manifest by an abominably ugly costume.

Isadora Duncan goes
back in style to the early Greek; dancing, however, necessarily to more modern
music, for the reason that we do not know how to reproduce much of the old, and
possibly would not like it if we could. To her work one may apply the phrase of
Simonides, that “dancing is silent poetry.” Preferable is the term that has been
used concerning architecture: Schelling, in his “Philosophie der Kunst,” calls
it “frozen music,” a term ridiculed by Madame de Staлl. Peter Legh wrote a book
on the topic, published in 1831, with the title “The Music of the Eye.” The book
is poor, pretentious stuff, but the title seems nicely applicable to the dancing
of Isadora Duncan. To a deaf man her work would be entirely musical-to a
Beethoven or Robert Franz, deaf after, for a while, full enjoyment of sound, her
dances would, I believe, represent complete, delightful, musical
impressions. It may be that sometimes in her work she attempts impossible
subtleties, endeavouring to express ideas beyond the range of melody-for it is
difficult to imagine that any dancing can be more than expressive of melody,
though no doubt to make this true “melody” must be understood in a large sense.
How far away this is from dancing which consists in the main of executing more
or less complicated steps “in time” with the music, or such appalling
vulgarities as a cake-walk. It must be admitted that one of the Tanagra
figurines is sadly suggestive of a characteristic pose in the cake-walk-though
it may well be that it is a mere pose which led to none of the abominations with
which our stage has been deluged! In the case of Isadora Duncan we have
seen poses and movements of extraordinary beauty, exquisitely sympathetic with
fine music. No doubt occasionally she has made a concession, as on her first
night, when she danced to “The Blue Danube” waltz by way of an encore, putting,
however, her own interpretation on the music and her sense of it. Those who are
acquainted with Greek sculpture and with some of the classic drawings of the old
masters will see that to a very large extent her work is a revival rather than
an invention; but this fact-which she acknowledges-in no degree diminishes the
merit of her performances, for the execution is of wonderful beauty and the
application of the old ideas to music of a different type is very clever.
Her work alone has well repaid the audiences, many members of which have made
several visits to the theatre; it has, however, been supplemented by dances in
which young children were the performers, dances so pretty in conception and
delightful in execution that one has felt the whole house thrilling with
pleasure. Nothing like these children dances, nothing of the kind half as
charming, has been given on the stage in our day.

The one complaint possible against Isadora Duncan is that she has rendered us
immoderately dissatisfied with what had once moderately contented us; and the
fear is that we shall promptly have a host of half-baked imitators, who will
copy the mere accidentals of her system without understanding the essentials,
and will fancy that the whole matter is one of clothes and music, and prance
about bare-legged, meaninglessly. It is hard to see how this is to be avoided
until there has been time for her pupils to grow up; it is certain, however,
that if the new idea, the new-old idea, takes root, there will be a revolution
in dancing, which may have far-reaching effects. Drama of the strictly
intellectual type will remain unaffected; possibly there will be a new
development of the musico-dramatic. It has been suggested that musical comedy is
waning, and the period has been reached when the average piece of this class
spells failure. There is, of course, nothing in the work of Isadora Duncan
which limits it to one principal, and naught to prevent the combination of
singing and dancing. Off-hand it seems rash to suggest that spoken dialogue
could be harmonized with these. It is imaginable that the authors of Prunella
could see their way to combine with work somewhat on the lines of their charming
piece such ideas of dancing as have been suggested by Isadora Duncan. The result
should be a novel, delightful form of art, not necessarily hybrid.

After Isadora Duncan’s public performances came the deluge and the country
was flooded with women indecently unclad, who flapped about on the stage
displaying their persons and their incompetence lavishly. The authorities have
been very lax as regards such performances, many of which were so obviously
crude and clumsy that it was clear that a succиs de scandale was sought
deliberately. Of course some of the performers may have had merit. Later
on (in 1910) there arrived some brilliant Russian dancers whose work is of too
great value and importance to be dealt with in a single paragraph.